Appeal 3306967

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No.[address], with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure.

No. [site address] (No.31) is a two-storey mid terrace house located on the west side of Hamsterly Park, a residential cul-de-sac. It is proposed to construct a ground floor rear extension to No.31 with a depth of around 6.2m, which would be at least half the length of the rear garden (at its shortest point). There is an existing concrete and close boarded timber fence along the shared boundary with the adjoined neighbour at No.[address] (No.32) and the extension would project right up to that boundary and would be more than half the width of the host house.

The Council’s Residential Extension and Alterations Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2011) explains that one of the most common problems with rear extensions is the affect that they can have on the amenity of neighbouring properties, and that overly large extensions can cause a loss of outlook or overbearing impact to neighbouring properties.

The building line of No.31 and its adjoined neighbours at Nos.30 and [address] is staggered such that the rear elevation of No.31 is set further back than the closest part of the rear elevation of No.32. I observed on my site visit that No.32 is arranged with an open plan living and dining area to the back of the house with a window to the living area directly facing the boundary with No.31. There are patio doors from the dining area giving access to the garden and a small patio courtyard formed by the staggered building line and No.32’s own extension. The proximity of the proposed extension to the boundary shared with No.32, in combination with the depth of the projection, means it would appear very prominent. It would present an intrusive outlook from the courtyard but also from the patio doors to the dining room, which forms part of the main living space of the house.

Although dimensions have not been provided, the height of the extension would be well above the existing boundary fence which is at least 2m in height, and above the top cills of the ground floor windows. Because of this height, the proposed extension would present a large and unrelieved brick elevation toward No.32, that would extend along a large part of the common boundary, giving it considerable presence and creating an uncomfortable sense of enclosure.

I therefore conclude that the proposed extension would cause significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No.[address]. As a consequence, the proposal conflicts with Policy S10 of the [name] Local Plan (Part 1) (2014) and saved policies H18 and E20 of the Northampton Local Plan (1997) which together seek to ensure that development is of the highest standard of design and does not have a detrimental effect on adjoining properties. It would further conflict with the guidance in the SPD and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires developments to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

I have given consideration to, and have sympathy for, the personal circumstances of the appellant and the need for additional ground floor accommodation. The appellant has suggested that a suitable compromise for them could be a reduction in the depth of the extension by around 2m, but it is only open for me to consider the proposals that were subject to the Council’s decision on the householder application. On the basis of the information before me, there may be an alternative solution for the appellant and I do not, therefore, find that the personal circumstances outweigh the significant harm that I have found to the living condition of the neighbours.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.